How the AfD Won

Internal dissension will do little to stem the euphoria of Germany’s triumphant right-wing populists.

AfD top candidates Alexander Gauland and Alice Weidel celebrate with their supporters during the election party 'Alternative for Germany' in Berlin, Germany, on Sunday, September 24, 2017Martin Meissner / AP

Angela Merkel may have secured a historic fourth term as chancellor of Germany on Sunday, but her victory was blunted by an unprecedented showing from the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the country’s far-right populist party, which now becomes the third-strongest party in the Bundestag, with 12.6 percent of the vote. It dominated the narrative on election night as the first far-right party to enter Germany’s national parliament since the 1950s.

At the AfD’s election party in Berlin on Sunday night, Alexander Gauland and Alice Weidel, the party’s co-leading candidates, offered a preview of the kind of rhetoric that their supporters can expect in the Bundestag. Weidel wasted no time taking aim at Merkel, vowing to launch a parliamentary investigation into the chancellor’s open-door policy that has led to hundreds of thousands of refugees entering Germany since 2015, even though Merkel has taken a more hardline stance on immigration since. “Dear friends, now that we’re obviously the third-biggest power … the government has to buckle up. We will hunt them. We will hunt Frau Merkel,” Gauland told supporters. “And we will reclaim our country and our people.”

But less than 24 hours after the AfD’s historic performance, the party’s fractures revealed themselves. On Monday, party co-chair Frauke Petry's long-simmering tensions with other leaders came to a head when she abruptly walked out of a press conference and said she would not join the AfD's parliamentary caucus. “I’ve decided I won’t be part of the AfD’s group in the German parliament but will initially be an individual member of parliament in the lower house,” she said. In a Facebook post, she thanked her supporters and said there would need to be “good pragmatic solutions” long before Germany’s next federal election in 2021 to shift the majorities away from the main parties and to a “reliable and truly conservative policy.” Other AfD leaders said they were surprised by Petry’s announcement, and sought to downplay her exit. “It’s always a shame when someone very talented leaves the party and Frauke Petry is very talented. But I must note that she wasn’t much help recently in the campaign,” Gauland told Reuterson Monday. Weidel called on Petry to renounce her party membership.

While Petry’s surprise departure was a distraction, it’s unlikely to dispel the euphoria of the party’s big night. The AfD’s strong performance shook Germany and Europe as the two major centrist parties—the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Bavarian sister party Christian Social Union (CSU), which make up Merkel’s conservative bloc, and the center-left Social Democrats (SPD)—dropped in the polls since the 2013 federal election. The AfD, which ran on an anti-immigration, anti-Islam platform, netted 94 seats in the Bundestag, which will give it and its nationalist agenda new visibility. In the end, the AfD’s fortunes were buoyed by the fact that the centrists parties lost support, especially with a large bloc of voters still undecided in the final week of the campaign. Coupled with the anti-establishment fervor, the party was able to maintain the anti-immigrant fervor that has bubbled up since the refugee crisis.

Related Story

After the surprising results of the U.S. presidential election, Britain’s Brexit vote, and high-profile elections in France and the Netherlands with far-right candidates, the world watched to see if Germany could dodge the wave of right-wing populism sweeping Europe. Even without an influx of refugees streaming into the country, the AfD managed to keep up its momentum and the anger that fuels its appeal. Controversial and anti-Semitic comments from some AfD leaders would spark a national outcry and, at times, even divided the party. Yet, the AfD began gaining in the polls again in the lead-up to election day, and political observers predicted the party would pick up around 70 seats at most.

On election day, the AfD mobilized non-voters and siphoned off voters who’ve supported the two main centrist parties, including one million voters who previously backed Merkel’s CDU-CSU bloc. The AfD was powered by voters from formerly communist east German states, where it captured about 21.6 percent, according to polling institute Infratest dimap in Berlin. But 60 percent of those who voted for the AfD said they did so as a protest vote instead of an alignment on policies.

Petry’s split from the AfD is the latest iteration of the infighting that has plagued the party. She took over as it lurched further right, capitalizing on the 2015 refugee crisis. Yet, she also attempted to steer it in a more mainstream direction so that it could one day join a governing coalition. But her realpolitik strategy failed to catch on, and her efforts to broaden the party’s appeal put her at odds with other leaders like Gauland, who replaced her as a co-leading candidate. While the party surged on the strength of its anti-immigrant positions, it started to fade earlier this year after Merkel brought the refugee crisis under control. But in the final week of the federal election, the AfD appeared to bounce back again with double digits in the polls.

Even though the AfD’s power will be limited, the election results triggered impromptu anti-AfD demonstrations in a handful of major cities around the country. In Berlin, hundreds of protesters gathered outside of where the AfD held its election-night party, chanting slogans like, “Nazis out!” and “Racism is not an alternative.” And during the “Elephants’ Roundtable” where leaders from the parties traditionally participate following the release of election results, the AfD was confronted directly by The Left party's chair Katja Kipping and the party leaders sparred over the classification of the AfD's views as far-right.

The problem for Germany’s mainstream parties lies in understanding how to win back their voters. While the AfD and other smaller parties made gains in their vote shares, the two main centrist parties, Merkel's conservative bloc and the SPD, bled support. Merkel’s conservative bloc got 33 percent, down from the 41.5 percent in 2013 and her party’s worst result since 1949. And the SPD languished in the low 20s with the party’s lowest results in post-war history. The Bundestag will now expand to include seven parties with a record of 709 seats.

The AfD's influence, however, would be limited since Merkel has ruled out forming a coalition with them. And it seems unlikely that the AfD will be the largest opposition party: The SPD’s Martin Schulz has ruled out another “grand coalition” with Merkel's conservatives, saying his Social Democrats will take the helm of the opposition. That would leave Merkel with only one other realistic coalition: teaming up with the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP) and environmentalists Greens in what is called a “Jamaica” coalition. (The coalition name is based off of the colors of the three parties, which are also the colors of Jamaica’s flag). The two smaller parties appear open to a governing coalition with Merkel, but negotiations are expected to run long, especially with the differing list of demands that typically pit the FDP and Greens against one another.

Meanwhile, the AfD received its fair share of praise and congratulatory messages even from those abroad. Over social media, far-right leaders across Europe, including Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front and Geert Wilders, leader of the Netherlands's Dutch Party for Freedom, congratulated the AfD’s third-place finish and praised Petry’s leadership. For now, then, right-wing populists across the continent will celebrate.

About the Author

Most Popular

The revolutionary ideals of Black Panther’s profound and complex villain have been twisted into a desire for hegemony.

The following article contains major spoilers.

Black Panther is a love letter to people of African descent all over the world. Its actors, its costume design, its music, and countless other facets of the film are drawn from all over the continent and its diaspora, in a science-fiction celebration of the imaginary country of Wakanda, a high-tech utopia that is a fictive manifestation of African potential unfettered by slavery and colonialism.

But it is first and foremost an African American love letter, and as such it is consumed with The Void, the psychic and cultural wound caused by the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, the loss of life, culture, language, and history that could never be restored. It is the attempt to penetrate The Void that brought us Alex Haley’s Roots, that draws thousands of African Americans across the ocean to visit West Africa every year, that left me crumpled on the rocks outside the Door of No Return at Gorée Island’s slave house as I stared out over a horizon that my ancestors might have traversed once and forever. Because all they have was lost to The Void, I can never know who they were, and neither can anyone else.

In Cyprus, Estonia, the United Arab Emirates, and elsewhere, passports can now be bought and sold.

“If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what citizenship means,” the British prime minister, Theresa May, declared in October 2016. Not long after, at his first postelection rally, Donald Trump asserted, “There is no global anthem. No global currency. No certificate of global citizenship. We pledge allegiance to one flag and that flag is the American flag.” And in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has increased his national-conservative party’s popularity with statements like “all the terrorists are basically migrants” and “the best migrant is the migrant who does not come.”

Citizenship and its varying legal definition has become one of the key battlegrounds of the 21st century, as nations attempt to stake out their power in a G-Zero, globalized world, one increasingly defined by transnational, borderless trade and liquid, virtual finance. In a climate of pervasive nationalism, jingoism, xenophobia, and ever-building resentment toward those who move, it’s tempting to think that doing so would become more difficult. But alongside the rise of populist, identitarian movements across the globe, identity itself is being virtualized, too. It no longer needs to be tied to place or nation to function in the global marketplace.

A week after 17 people were murdered in a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, teenagers across South Florida, in areas near Washington, D.C., and in other parts of the United States walked out of their classrooms to stage protests against the horror of school shootings and to advocate for gun law reforms.

A week after 17 people were murdered in a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, teenagers across South Florida, in areas near Washington, D.C., and in other parts of the United States walked out of their classrooms to stage protests against the horror of school shootings and to advocate for gun law reforms. Student survivors of the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School traveled to their state Capitol to attend a rally, meet with legislators, and urge them to do anything they can to make their lives safer. These teenagers are speaking clearly for themselves on social media, speaking loudly to the media, and they are speaking straight to those in power—challenging lawmakers to end the bloodshed with their “#NeverAgain” movement.

Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein flew to Seattle for a press conference at which he announced little, but may have said a great deal.

Back in the fall of 2001, exactly one month after the 9/11 attacks, a lawyer in Seattle named Tom Wales was murdered as he worked alone at his home computer at night. Someone walked into the yard of Wales’s house in the Queen Anne Hill neighborhood of Seattle, careful to avoid sensors that would have set off flood lights in the yard, and fired several times through a basement window, hitting Wales as he sat at his desk. Wales survived long enough to make a call to 911 and died soon afterwards. He was 49, divorced, with two children in their 20s.

The crime was huge and dismaying news in Seattle, where Wales was a prominent, respected, and widely liked figure. As a young lawyer in the early 1980s he had left a potentially lucrative path with a New York law firm to come to Seattle and work as an assistant U.S. attorney, or federal prosecutor. That role, which he was still performing at the time of his death, mainly involved prosecuting fraud cases. In his off-duty hours, Wales had become a prominent gun-control advocate. From the time of his death onward, the circumstances of the killing—deliberate, planned, nothing like a robbery or a random tragedy—and the prominence of his official crime-fighting record and unofficial advocacy role led to widespread assumption that his death was a retaliatory “hit.” The Justice Department considers him the first and only U.S. prosecutor to have been killed in the line of duty.

The president’s son is selling luxury condos and making a foreign-policy speech.

Who does Donald Trump Jr. speak for?

Does the president’s son speak for the Trump Organization as he promotes luxury apartments in India? Does he speak for himself when he dines with investors in the projects? Does he speak for the Trump administration as he makes a foreign-policy speech in Mumbai on Friday?

“When these sons go around all over the world talking about, one, Trump business deals and, two, … apparently giving speeches on some United States government foreign policy, they are strongly suggesting a linkage between the two,” Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer who is a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, told me. “Somebody, somewhere is going to cross the line into suggesting a quid pro quo.”

On Tuesday, the district attorney in Durham, North Carolina, dismissed all remaining charges in the August case. What does that mean for the future of statues around the country?

DURHAM, N.C.—“Let me be clear, no one is getting away with what happened.”

That was Durham County Sheriff Mike Andrews’s warning on August 15, 2017. The day before, a protest had formed on the lawn outside the county offices in an old courthouse. In more or less broad daylight, some demonstrators had leaned a ladder against the plinth, reading, “In memory of the boys who wore the gray,” and looped a strap around it. Then the crowd pulled down the statue, and it crumpled cheaply on the grass. It was a brazen act, witnessed by dozens of people, some of them filming on cell phones.

Andrews was wrong. On Tuesday, a day after a judge dismissed charges against two defendants and acquitted a third, Durham County District Attorney Roger Echols announced the state was in effect surrendering, dismissing charges against six other defendants.

The path to its revival lies in self-sacrifice, and in placing collective interests ahead of the narrowly personal.

The death of liberalism constitutes the publishing world’s biggest mass funeral since the death of God half a century ago. Some authors, like conservative philosopher Patrick Deneen, of Why Liberalism Failed, have come to bury yesterday’s dogma. Others, like Edward Luce (The Retreat of Western Liberalism), Mark Lilla (The Once and Future Liberal), and Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (How Democracies Die) come rather to praise. I’m in the latter group; the title-in-my-head of the book I’m now writing is What Was Liberalism.

But perhaps, like God, liberalism has been buried prematurely. Maybe the question that we should be asking is not what killed liberalism, but rather, what can we learn from liberalism’s long story of persistence—and how can we apply those insights in order to help liberalism write a new story for our own time.

A new study finds that many household goods degrade air quality more than once thought.

On the final day of April 2010, unbeknownst to most locals, a small fleet of specialists and equipment from the U.S. government descended on the seas and skies around Los Angeles.

A “Hurricane Hunter” Lockheed P-3 flew in from Denver. The U.S. Navy vessel Atlantis loitered off the coast of Santa Monica. Orbiting satellites took special measurements. And dozens of scientists set up temporary labs across the basin, in empty Pasadena parking lots and at the peak of Mount Wilson.

This was all part of a massive U.S. government study with an ambitious goal: Measure every type of gas or chemical that wafted by in the California air.

Jessica Gilman, a research chemist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was one member of the invading horde. For six weeks, she monitored one piece of equipment—a kind of “souped-up, ruggedized” instrument—as it sat outside in Pasadena, churning through day and night, measuring the amount of chemicals in the air. It was designed to detect one type of air pollutant in particular: volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. VOCs are best known for their presence in car exhaust, but they are also found in gases released by common household products, like cleaners, house paints, and nail polish.

Outside powers have been central to the nuclear crisis—but for a few peculiar weeks in February.

Of all the arguments in favor of allowing North Korea to leap into the spotlight with South Korea at the Winter Olympics—what with its deceptively smiley diplomats and even more smiley cheerleaders and the world’s most celebrated winless hockey team—one hasn’t received much attention. “It’s tragic that people of shared history, blood, language, and culture have been divided through geopolitics of the superpowers,” Talia Yoon, a resident of Seoul, toldThe New York Times when the paper asked South Koreans for their thoughts on the rapprochement between North and South Korea at the Olympics. “Neither Korea has ever been truly independent since the division.”

In this telling, having Korean athletes march under a unification flag at the Opening Ceremony and compete jointly in women’s hockey isn’t just about the practical goal of ensuring the Games aren’t disrupted by an act of North Korean aggression, or the loftier objective of seizing a rare opportunity for a diplomatic resolution to the escalating crisis over Kim Jong Un’s nuclear-weapons program. It’s also about Koreans—for a couple surreal weeks in February, at least—plucking some control over that crisis from the superpowers that have been so influential in shaping it over the past year.